RSSACD Discontinues Publication of J. Grant Swank’s columns
J.J. Jackson | May 5, 2008
American Conservative Daily has officially ceased the publication of columns by Mr. Swank. I wish to apologize to our readers for the way that some of his posts degraded and became so far away from what we had originally hoped they would. I of course take full responsibility for Mr. Swank’s columns appearing on this site since I was the one that made the decision to syndicate him originally.
The fact is however that for every reasonable post by Mr. Swank, there were three that were completely out of character with what we want to promote, that degenerated into insanity and we did not want to be put in a position where either myself or the staff are going to have to defend those that were unreasonable.
A couple points for clarification.
First: No one on staff (meaning the Admin or Moderators) agrees with Mr. Swank’s continual and belligerent assertion that Barack Obama is a Muslim currently. That of course doesn’t mean that we like Barack Obama as a presidential candidate or that we will ignore his connections to the religion which grow stronger by the day or the fact that he was at one time a Muslim.
We believe that the Senator believes he is a Christian, although he is at best a highly liberal Christian who has bought into a bastardized form of Christianity in which it is actually ok to covet the belongings of others and use the government to acquire/steal them. He apparently hold this belief, of course, despite the clear commandments of God against such actions.
Second: No one on staff (meaning the Admin of the Moderators) agrees with Mr. Swank’s continual bashing of the Mormon faith as a “cult”. It is clear that Mr. Swank does not care much for Mormons but his assertions go well beyond reasonable discourse. Neither myself nor any of the moderators here are in fact Mormons just in case someone might believe that he has offended our own religious beliefs.
It is true however that each of us find the whole story concerning the origin of the Mormon faith just a little more than highly suspicious and maybe even a little nutty. However as we have jointly said previously there are some people that find the whole Jesus Christ rising from the dead thing that we each believe in nutty as well.
Beyond that however we do respect the Mormons as brothers and sisters in Christ even though they have different beliefs and we do not equate them to the polygamist offshoots that get into trouble every now and again and which are not endorsed by the church. To do so would be akin to holding other Christian sects accountable for the actions of Westboro Baptist Church and their insanity.
As for existing posts by Mr. Swank, I am still contemplating what to do with them. Some of them are good. Some of them are bad. I think in many of the bad ones members of this site including the staff have denounced them. As such, for the time being, they will remain for commentary by members of this site if you wish to chime in on them.
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
9 Responses to “ACD Discontinues Publication of J. Grant Swank’s columns”
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
Im a liberal and I’ve read a couple of Swank’s articles. Just put a comment on his articles saying that he is insane. If you do that, my image of the ultra-conservative would improve a little bit. Dont try to protect him if you have actually read his posts and think he is crazy. If you did that, the nation would not think highly of you guys and this website (not that it would anyway). On the other hand, if you think his views are true or valid, then say that. Dont fold under my pressure to get you to back away from him if you think his views are good. Say that he has a right to express his views, and that you want every view to be heard if you think that. I woudnt think less of you if you did that either. Anyway, base your decision of what to do with his articles on what you think, because you are the creator of this website, and you have a right to your freedom of speech. Do not base your decision upon popularity, do what you think is right.
Also, dont get rid of them entirely.
A) Getting rid of them would be a violation of freedom of speech/freedom of press.
B) No matter what everyone else says, this guy has a right to his own view.
C) His posts are fun to read to see how many inaccuracies are in them.
Noel, obviously you are a liberal. I can tell because you completely misrepresented the first amendment in your second comment. Note: The first amendment only applies to Congress and the government (as well as States see 14th Amendment) not private individuals, companies and enterprises such as this website.
For our terms of use:
“This site, while accessible to the public, is a privately owned and operated. It is not a “place of public accommodation” and you do not have a “right” to make comments or post articles and commentary on this site.”
I am sorry, I am only in 9th grade, and our class has never covered the constitution in detail. I looked it up on wikepedia and you are right there. on the other hand, you seem like a person who has valid viewpoints (if not exactly what i believe), so you have to admit in the “Obama is a Muslim” article, he had an inaccuracy almost every sentence when expressing his viewpoint.
The question that needs to be asked then is why you believe in things that are false and easily disproven. My point is that you should be wary of calling the kettle black Mr. Pot.
That you have viewpoints is fine. Make sure they are justifiable however and don’t speak beyond your knowledge. That is my advice to you.
[...] Geller, Emperor Misha I, LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR, Debbie Schlussel, Dafydd ab Hugh, Warrior Subject: ACD Discontinues Publication of J. Grant Swank’s columns Posted Thursday, Nov. 6, 2008, at 9:27 PM [...]
“The question that needs to be asked then is why you believe in things that are false and easily disproven.”
To be fair, a whole lot of people make exactly that mistake, and the group certainly isn’t confined to liberals. Sarah Palin complained about media criticism violating her 1st Amendment rights, for example.
If I had to guess, I would say that about 50% of Americans believe that the 1st Amendment applies against private actors, 30% couldn’t tell you what the Amendment is about at all, and 20% could accurately tell you that it restrains state and federal government but not private actors.
By the way, it’s interesting that you so easily acknowledge the incorporation of 1st Amendment rights against the states through the 14th Amendment. I thought conservative jurisprudence was skeptical of the notion of substantive due process.
Conservative jurisprudence has always believed that the inalienable rights of any man are not able to be violated by any agent of the government. The concept of the 14th amendment restraining states is not something that is odd considering it states exactly that and in a long standing principle of modern conservative and classical liberal thought.
[...] Jackson: Yes, Grant Swank was an example of an author that I vetted but didn’t do a good job of vetting. Once we started [...]